PREMISES AFFECTED - 3149 Bedford Avenue, Borough of Brooklyn.
79-03-A
APPLICANT - Naftali Zvi Dembitzer, for Kemmy Safdie, owner; Morris & Sari Chera & Sarmo Mgmt. Corp., lessee.
SUBJECT - Application March 4, 2003 - An administrative appeal challenging the Department of Buildings' final determination , dated February 7, 2003, declining to revoke the Certificate of Occupancy No. 300518296 ("CO"), that was unlawfully obtained from the Department on or about February 16, 1999 for said premises.
PREMISES AFFECTED - 3149 Bedford Avenue, 180'0 north of the corner of Avenue "J", Block 7607, Lot 35, Borough of Brooklyn.
COMMUNITY BOARD #14BK
APPEARANCES -
For Applicant: Naftali Zvi Dembitzer and Stacy Harvey.
ACTION OF THE BOARD - Appeal granted on condition.
THE VOTE TO GRANT -
Affirmative: Chairman Chin, Vice-Chair Babbar, and Commissioner Caliendo, Commissioner Miele...... 4
Negative:...... 0
WHEREAS, this is an appeal of the Borough Commissioner’s decision dated February 7, 2003, declining revocation of Certificate of Occupancy Number 300518296; and
WHEREAS, the Board notes that on June 4, 2002, New York Supreme Court Kings County, determined that in the case Dembitzer v. Chera, et al., Index No. 18947/1999, Justice Hutcherson, stayed the court action and ordered the plaintiff to exhaust available administrative remedies directing the appellant to seek Board review of the Department of Buildings determinations; and
WHEREAS, consequently, this appeal challenges the Department of Buildings determination refusing revocation of Certificate of Occupancy Number 300518296; and
WHEREAS, the record indicates that Application Number 300518296 was originally issued for an altered building, but that the Certificate of Occupancy, issued on or about February 16, 1999 was issued for a “New” building with two stories and a cellar; and
WHEREAS, the appellant is the owner and occupant of 3155 Bedford Avenue, which is adjacent to the subject premises; and
WHEREAS, the appellant represents that the illegal construction has existed since 1996; and
WHEREAS, the record indicates that neither the job application folder, nor the microfiche files are available for inspection; and
WHEREAS, in response to the Board’s request, the Department of Buildings submitted two microfilmed surveys of the premises dated June 6, 1998 and February 6, 1999; and
WHEREAS, the June 6, 1998 survey entitled “Line Survey” does not show the entire premises, it does depict the south side of the premises and describes it as a “Two-story brick & stucco” building, “brick deck,” and “Concrete block garage (stucco) and also describes a “1 story stucco” at the eastern, or rear portion of the premises; and
WHEREAS, the February 6, 1999 survey entitled “Final Survey,” describes the premises as containing an “open porch,” a “Two-story brick & stucco” building, “brick deck,” and “Concrete block garage (stucco) and shows a common driveway to the garage; and
WHEREAS, the Department of Buildings notes that it is common for applications for Certificates of Occupancy to contain two surveys depicting the premises before and after the application work is completed; and
WHEREAS, the Board agrees with the Department of Buildings contention that the existence of two surveys showing different conditions at the premises does not support a claim that the subject Certificate of Occupancy was improperly issued; and
WHEREAS, however, the record suggests, that in the instant case, there are procedural and substantive irregularities that would render Certificate of Occupancy Number 300518296 invalid; and
WHEREAS, therefore, a site and neighborhood examination was made by a committee of the Board consisting of Chairman James Chin, Vice-Chair Satish Babbar, Commissioner Peter Caliendo and Commissioner Joel Miele; and
WHEREAS, the Board notes that the subject dwelling is located in an R2 zoning district, which is characterized by low density detached developments; and
WHEREAS, the Board agrees with the appellants representation that the subject dwelling violates the floor area and open space ratios permitted under Zoning Resolution Section 23-141, as well as the side, front and rear yard requirements; and
WHEREAS, the Department of Buildings argues that Certificate of Occupancy Number 300518296 should not be revoked because the premises would revert to the condition permitted under the 1924 Certificate of Occupancy creating similar enforcement problems; and
WHEREAS, however, the issue before the Board, is whether Certificate of Occupancy Number 300518296 was erroneously issued; and
WHEREAS, DOB Application Number 300518296 was originally issued for an altered building, but the Certificate of Occupancy, issued on or about February 16, 1999 was issued for a “New” building, which the Board finds violates numerous yard sections of the Zoning Resolution; and
WHEREAS, therefore, the Board finds that the appellant has submitted adequate evidence to warrant granting this appeal.
Resolved, that the Borough Commissioner’s decision dated February 7, 2003, declining revocation of Certificate of Occupancy Number 300518296 is reversed and Certificate of Occupancy Number 300518296 is revoked.
Adopted by the Board of Standards and Appeals, August 5, 2003.